Journalism and cycling

I love Sean nos

radia wrote: »

With leisure groups as well, taking the roads in groups and large numbers, the question often arises Conor there, about their entitlement to bunch or to move in groups. The law is very clear in this

It certainly is Aidan, but it's also clear that your understanding of it is flawed.

buffalo

radia wrote: »

there's responsibility on all drivers to watch out and allow sufficient space. For example, with cyclists that's 1.5 metres is the recommended distance. ... And if you have a single carriageway with a continuous white line, it is not safe for cyclists to go in pairs, because a car cannot overtake the white line, and you have a vulnerable situation arising.

Leaving aside what a "vulnerable situation arising" is, he seems to be suggesting that it's possible to give even a single cyclist 1.5m without crossing the white line, which would be unusual on many roads.

Kav0777

buffalo wrote: »

Leaving aside what a "vulnerable situation arising" is, he seems to be suggesting that it's possible to give even a single cyclist 1.5m without crossing the white line, which would be unusual on many roads.

Multiple single cyclists at that..

rubadub

OK, so he has made it "very clear", it is, and seemingly has been for a very long time, illegal to cycle 2 abreast if there is a continuous white line. I want to know if I am going to be done for overtaking a cyclist if there is a continuous white line, as I will momentarily be 2 abreast. Is there a time limit allowance for me to overtake.

I love Sean nos

rubadub wrote: »

OK, so he has made it "very clear", it is, and seemingly has been for a very long time, illegal to cycle 2 abreast if there is a continuous white line.

Is it?

29 Driving two abreast

29.—(1) A pedal cyclist shall not, save when overtaking other pedal cyclists (and then only if to do so will not endanger other traffic or pedestrians) drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than two pedal cycles driving abreast.

(2) Pedal cyclists on a roadway shall cycle in single file when overtaking other traffic.

radia

From the cycling legislation megathread:

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Cycling Two Abreast

What the law says:

Originally Posted by S.I. No. 294/1964 - Road Traffic General Bye-Laws, 1964
29.—(1) A pedal cyclist shall not, save when overtaking other pedal cyclists (and then only if to do so will not endanger other traffic or pedestrians) drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than two pedal cycles driving abreast.

(2) Pedal cyclists on a roadway shall cycle in single file when overtaking other traffic.

What this means:
You may cycle two abreast. You can cycle three abreast while overtaking, but only when a.) the overtaking cyclists are cycling in single file and the overtaken cyclists are two abreasts and b.) the overtaking manoeuvre is not endangering other road users.

seamus

No, it's not illegal to cycle two abreast when there's a continuous white line. That's not even up for debate.

In fact, it's not even illegal for a vehicle to overtake another one when there's a continuous white line - it's only illegal to cross the white line.

In terms of overtaking cyclists when there's a continuous white line, cyclists may count as an "obstruction" under the Road Traffic Act. Which is one of the few circumstances when you're allowed to cross the white line in order to get around the obstruction.

The Bishop Basher

I love Sean nos wrote: »

Is it?

47. (1) A pedal cyclist shall not drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than 2 pedal cyclists driving abreast, save when overtaking other pedal cyclists, and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians.

Macy0161

Absolutely appauling message for a senior garda to put out on the main daily news programme.

I spent last Friday night explaining to someone giving out about two a breast cyclists hogging the road how you couldn't safely pass even if they were single file, explaining that by the time the cyclist allows enough space from the road edge, and you allow 1.5m (or even 1m) then there isn't room to pass safely anyway. I think I got the message through eventually, but pretty much the whole safe passing/ 1.5m has been damaged by this flippant intervention.

Perhaps the worst thing is, is not even shocking that he'd be so ill-informed. It's actually what I'd expect from our police force.

seamus

Swanner wrote: »

47. (1) A pedal cyclist shall not drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than 2 pedal cyclists driving abreast, save when overtaking other pedal cyclists, and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians.

Which means "You can cycle more than 2 abreast to overtake, only if doing so doesn't cause an inconvenience or obstruction"

It doesn't mean, "You cannot cycle 2 abreast if you are causing an obstruction". It simply doesn't say that.

Macy0161

Swanner wrote: »

47. (1) A pedal cyclist shall not drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than 2 pedal cyclists driving abreast, save when overtaking other pedal cyclists, and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians.

It's a complete red herring anyway - you can't safely overtake one if you can't safely overtake two. If you're allowing a safe passing distance.

Pinch Flat

Swanner wrote: »

47. (1) A pedal cyclist shall not drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than 2 pedal cyclists driving abreast, save when overtaking other pedal cyclists, and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians.

And just up the Page, Section 19 states:

"19 Overtaking

19.—(1) A driver shall not overtake (or attempt to overtake) if to do so would endanger, or cause inconvenience to, any other person.

(2) A driver shall not overtake (or attempt to overtake) unless he can clearly see a portion of the roadway which—

(a) is free from approaching traffic, pedestrians and any obstruction, and

(b) is sufficiently long and wide to permit the overtaking to be completed without danger or inconvenience to other traffic or pedestrians."

So it's the test of inconvenience against endangerment. Wonder which one would stand up in court?

Granolite

I believe the comments of the Gardai this morning on the national airwaves actually serve to further endanger cyclist's on the road on two counts;

1.
tacitly condoning and facilitating the option to dangerously drive a car, van or truck between a solid white line and a cyclist whether in single file or cycling solo in the face of oncoming traffic, approaching blind bends, crests on the road, etc. This advice / opinion articulated this morning lends itself to increased potential danger and reduces margin's for error, when performing an over-take

2.
condoning in some driver's perspective the right to vent at cyclist's cycling two abreast, when legally protected to do so, and thus increasing potential incidence of road rage type episodes in general and expediting even more subsequent close passes etc..

I am seething at this opinion from a professional spokesperson being allowed to go unchallenged on the radio at a time when rush-hour traffic across the country is tuning into radio broadcasts such as this and allow ill thought out driving manoeuvre's jeopardise my safety,and those of people I hold dear to me.

I stand to be corrected but isn't the point of the law as written to facilitate retention of two abreast cycling to help prevent such scenario's arising where a a driver may be accommodated to dangerously overtake in the face of oncoming traffic, and to make us more visible to traffic approaching from in front or behind?

The Bishop Basher

seamus wrote: »

It doesn't mean, "You cannot cycle 2 abreast if you are causing an obstruction".

That's exactly what it says.

Macy0161 wrote: »

It's a complete red herring anyway - you can't safely overtake one if you can't safely overtake two. If you're allowing a safe passing distance.

This is regularly trotted out here but it's nonsense.

Off the top of my head I can think of numerous roads where I could safely overtake one cyclist but not 2 cycling abreast.. Happy to link a few if you wish but i reckon you know this too.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

And just up the Page, Section 19 states:
19.—(1) A driver shall not overtake (or attempt to overtake) if to do so would endanger, or cause inconvenience to, any other person...

So it's the test of inconvenience against endangerment. Wonder which one would stand up in court?

See this mindset is the problem.. Why does it have to get to that point.. Of course a driver shouldn't overtake if it endangers another person. That's as it should be and i'm not suggesting otherwise.

but other then the very large dose of whataboutery going on in your head, i've no idea how this relates to the points above..

CramCycle

Swanner wrote: »

47. (1) A pedal cyclist shall not drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than 2 pedal cyclists driving abreast, save when overtaking other pedal cyclists, and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians.

Which basically means, don't overtake if there is traffic behind you committing to an overtake or there is approaching traffic.

CramCycle

Swanner wrote: »

That's exactly what it says.

Re read the legislation again

47. (1) A pedal cyclist shall not drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than 2 pedal cyclists driving abreast, save when overtaking other pedal cyclists, and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians.

MORE THAN - as in upto but not more than. single file is fine, two abreast is fine, anything more than that is not fine if it causes issues with other road users. To break it down. When they say inconvenience or obstruction, they basically mean, obstruction. So if a cyclist comes up behind cyclists cycling two abreast and looks behind and sees a car starting an overtake or being clear that one is imminent, they should not do it. Same applies if said cyclist sees approaching traffic that will come into conflict if an overtake is attempted.

It really is basic, basic english. There is nothing confusing in the statement unlike many other things on the statute books.

The Bishop Basher

CramCycle wrote: »

Which basically means, don't overtake if there is traffic behind you committing to an overtake or there is approaching traffic.

Basically or actually.

Because to me it means don't cycle two abreast if doing so causes you to endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic.

Moflojo

Swanner wrote: »

47. (1) A pedal cyclist shall not drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than 2 pedal cyclists driving abreast, save when overtaking other pedal cyclists, and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians.

I'm going to break it down into smaller, edible pieces for you:

A pedal cyclist shall not...cycle...more than 2...abreast [So far so good?]

...save (except) when overtaking other...cyclists [Still with us?]

...and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians. [i.e. only if it's "safe" to be more than 2 abreast]

CramCycle

Swanner wrote: »

Basically or actually.

Because to me it means don't cycle two abreast if doing so causes you to endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic.

Sorry

ACTUALLY

That is what it says. There is no ambiguity, no confusion, that is what it says.

The Bishop Basher

CramCycle wrote: »

MORE THAN - as in upto but not more than. single file is fine, two abreast is fine, anything more than that is not fine if it causes issues with other road users.

No issues so far...

CramCycle wrote: »

To break it down. When they say inconvenience or obstruction, they basically mean, obstruction.

The legal document states "inconvenience or obstruction".

So with the greatest of respect and regardless of what you would like it to mean, I'm going to go with the words stated in the legal document until such time as those words are either removed or amended by those with the authority to do so..

CramCycle wrote: »

It really is basic, basic english. There is nothing confusing in the statement unlike many other things on the statute books.

Agreed.

The Bishop Basher

Moflojo wrote: »

I'm going to break it down into smaller, edible pieces for you:

A pedal cyclist shall not...cycle...more than 2...abreast [So far so good?]

...save (except) when overtaking other...cyclists [Still with us?]

...and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians. [i.e. only if it's "safe" to be more than 2 abreast]

I'm not disagreeing with this point. But sure keep the condescension coming it it helps you feel better..

Oh and no need to shout either

amcalester

Swanner wrote: »

No issues so far...



The legal document states "inconvenience or obstruction".

So with the greatest of respect and regardless of what you would like it to mean, I'm going to go with the words stated in the legal document until such time as those words are either removed or amended by those with the authority to do so..



Agreed.

The "inconvenience or obstruction" reference only applies when cyclists are cycling more than 2 abreast , that's the bit you've misunderstood.

amcalester

I've emailed the Garda Press Office asking them if they are going to release a statement correcting Superintendent Reid's factually inaccurate statement.

Wait and see what they say.

RayCun

Swanner wrote: »

Basically or actually.

Because to me it means don't cycle two abreast if doing so causes you to endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic.

No, it says don't cycle MORE THAN two abreast if doing so causes you to endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic

Lemming

Swanner wrote: »

This is regularly trotted out here but it's nonsense.

Off the top of my head I can think of numerous roads where I could safely overtake one cyclist but not 2 cycling abreast.. Happy to link a few if you wish but i reckon you know this too.

How about 2 cyclists in single file? Three? Four? Five? Still safe to overtake? What number of roads quantifies as "numerous"; dual carriage-ways don't count ...

Granolite

amcalester wrote: »

I've emailed the Garda Press Office asking them if they are going to release a statement correcting Superintendent Reid's factually inaccurate statement.

Wait and see what they say.

I've done the same too.


their email is here;
pressoffice@garda.ie

The Bishop Basher

amcalester wrote: »

The "inconvenience or obstruction" reference only applies when cyclists are cycling more than 2 abreast , that's the bit you've misunderstood.

Gotcha. Thanks..

Pinch Flat

Swanner wrote: »

See this mindset is the problem.. Why does it have to get to that point.. Of course a driver shouldn't overtake if it endangers another person. That's as it should be and i'm not suggesting otherwise.

but other then the very large dose of whataboutery going on in your head, i've no idea how this relates to the points above..

It's not a mindset problem, it's about understanding what the RTA says.

"47. (1) A pedal cyclist shall not drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than 2 pedal cyclists driving abreast, save when overtaking other pedal cyclists, and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians."

So what it says in plain language is that it's legal to cycle two abreast. If you over take a group of 2 cycling abreast, thereby cycling three abreast, make sure you don't endanger, inconvenience or obstruct others while doing so.

It's this issue that a lot of motorists don't understand - Cyclists do not cycle 2 abreast to p!ss off motorists. it's for their own safety. This is enshrined in international treaties and common law for a half a century - the fact that it still needs to be explained after this time shows a pretty fundamental disconnect on how people are educated in using the roads.

Moflojo

Swanner wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing with this point. But sure keep the condescension coming it it helps you feel better..

Oh and no need to shout either

I'll grant you that the use of the words "and then" causes an element of ambiguity, depending on whether you interpret those words as referring to the first part of the sentence (should not cycle more than two abreast) or the second part (save when overtaking...).

If "and then only..." was intended to refer to cycling two abreast then whoever wrote the legislation made a dog's dinner of it, but it's a distinct possibility nonetheless.

rubadub

I love Sean nos wrote: »

Is it?

I certainly don't think it is, but the way he said it he seemed absolutely certain and so should be questioned more and made an example of.

It would be good if there was some official & public site you could question stuff like this, having say a judge or some government official forced to reply and publicly say the Garda was incorrect. He should be repreimanded.

Maybe if lots of people asked various authorities like the RSA on twitter it would get attention.